carleton

gycho makes a good point. Can you post the geometry of both bikes:

- Head tube angle
- seat tube ange
- fork rake/offset
- bb drop

queerpunk

eh; better only if you have issues with the Planet X.

The Langster Pro is a decent bike, even considering the fact that it doesn't have sprint geometry. It's a no-nonsense, probably-reasonably-aero, fairly stiff, good-handling track bike - aimed at enduros or amateurs. Whether that's an improvement from your Planet X worth spending money on is murky.

gycho77

Langster pro

I cannot find fork rake for planet x


And I found a cool picture of a integrated headset(steel bike)

wens

If the only reason you're looking at a new bike is because you have a deal and think it's a better bike, I'd pass. If you dislike your planet x or like something about the langster more (even paint job), go for it.

Banchad

I've been looking around for a better frame for a while.

brooksmarino

I need some help identifying this frame. It has no badges or words anywhere that I can see. The dropouts don't have any either. Track dropouts with 120mm spacing. Drilled for a rear brake. The serial number is visible on the bottom bracket but I haven't had any luck looking it up. Not sure what the measurements are on the seat post but I'll measure later and post the results. Geometry is 55 by 55 I think. Any help is appreciated.

Baby Puke

The BB with cable guides suggests road bike with track ends added later.

dunderhi

Looking at the difference in the lug styles & brazing do you know if the front half of the main triangle has been replaced or not?

carleton

Keep the Planet X. The Specialized is a street bike.

carleton

You should ask in the Singlespeed / Fixed Gear forum.

MarkWW

My guess is it's not anything special, but you'd probably have luck asking over in C&V to be sure. The bottom bracket and track ends can both be found from nova cycle supply, which makes me think it's a pretty recent build. Probably somebody's foray into frame building for kicks. Maybe it was somebody who took a frame building class.

BB: https://www.cycle-frames.com/bicycle-...LE-GUIDES.html
Track ends: https://www.cycle-frames.com/bicycle-...70-degree.html

MrMinty

How did you know what events you thought you'd be good at?

I feel I'm somewhere between a sprinter and enduro. I think I'd do well at a kilo or 1st man in team sprint as a standing start is one of my strongest areas. My local league also does a 200m TT from a standing start which I think I'll do quite well at.

dunderhi

I rode and continue to ride them all, including the ones in which I'm really bad. If I ride in a sprint tournament and don't get last, it's a victory for me.

carleton

A key indicator is muscle fiber type. Generally, your muscle fiber type percentages does not change over time. So if you were predisposed to being an endurance athlete as a kid, you'll likely be the same as an adult. Same for sprinters.

High school athletics are a good testing ground for muscle fiber time because most schools have the students doing all kinds of sports that involve everything from short bursts of speed (100M dash) to long events (1 mile run). And the sample sizes are relatively large (LOTS of kids in the school doing the same things), so if you are above average in something there, this is good.

If you were in fair shape, your performance, likes, and dislikes of these events will lend a valuable clues to your muscle fiber type percentage. In layman's terms: TALENT

So...

If you were a "sprinter" in high school track and field or were above average in sports that use fast-twitch muscles or lots of power, then you will probably lean towards being better at sprint events because you have a higher percentage of "fast twitch" muscles.

If you were an "long distance" runner in high school track and field (events 1 mile /1,600m or longer) then you will likely be better at endurance events because you have a higher percentage of fatigue-resistance "slow twitch" muscles.

If you were best at "middle distance" events like the 800M or you didn't particularly excel in sprint or long events, then you may be an all-around racer or simply above-average across the board.



This is a general rule of thumb, but I've found it to hold true for new racers entering the sport.

Anecdotal story: I knew a guy who was a 3rd year masters racer. Still relatively new to the sport. Really strong and fast in group races. Made it up to the A group. Then he decided to take off-season training seriously. Lured by the fame and glamour that all sprinters enjoy (just kidding), he wanted to be a pure sprinter. After all, he *was* and A grade racer already, racing local pros weekly and whatnot.

I asked him about his HS athletics. He said that he was a middle distance runner and even did the same in college. His results showed the same on the track. Middle-distance races of 5-20 laps proved to be his strong suit. No matter how much lifting and sprint training he did, he never got close to the sprint speeds that he wanted. But, in a 10 lap scratch, he could hurt the best of them. If he was in the final sprint, he was a contender to win. 60 laps? Nope. He might hang on and finish the race, but he never was a contender.

So, this leads me to something I strongly believe: It's better to recognize your strengths and build them up to an unbeatable level than it is to work on your weaknesses to "cover all of your bases". Doing the latter will make you good at being average as opposed to being excellent in some areas. To put it briefly: Specialize.

I'm not saying ignore your weaknesses. I'm saying max out your strengths...then enter races that play to your strengths You won't see Francois Pervis enter into a World Cup Points Race. Why? It doesn't play to his strengths.

carleton

+1

Minty, this is a good way to see where your current strengths lay.

Also, you will see sprinters enter into endurance races (and vice-versa) as a form of training (and fun). So, if a sprinter shows up and looks at the 5 lap scratch as the race (s)he hopes to do well in that night. He'll go all out in that race. But, since (s)he's there and has paid money, (s)he'll race the much longer races too, for exercise and training...and often to help out the enduro teammates.

But, it's not unusual to see sprinters pack up and go home after the short events nor is it unusual to see enduros opt-out of racing the sprint events.

ILikeParmesan

Hey Carleton + others,

Noob here and looking to start track racing and crit racing for the first time this year. I wish I could do track year round but it is only open for 4 months so I'm planning on doing crits too.

Anyways, is if lifting heavy weights twice a week enough volume to produce noticeable strength gains? Or should I add in a third day? I'm doing lifting 2x a week and riding my bike 3x a week.

wens

Sprint or endurance track races? Are you more focused on track or on crits, or about the same?

ILikeParmesan

I'm going to try out both sprint and endurance events to see what I'm better at. I'm splitting my focus between track and crit training on the bike until I have more experience. Basically I have no aerobic engine right now so I cut down on weight lifting to twice a week but I'm having second thoughts since my main strength is my anaerobic ability.

queerpunk

So, the answer is always "it depends." There are a ton of variables. However, yes, lifting twice a week instead of three times a week will probably produce strength gains (if you do it right). The other answer, though, is that if you're a noob starting out on track and crits, you might not need to set aside 2 days/week for lifting. You'll probably make better gains on the bike - technique, coordination, and aerobically. When you're starting out, more bike time is better; save the weights for when you have identified your limiters and strength gains are a way to overcome them. (unless you just love lifting and want to incorporate it to your general physical activity)

Hida Yanra

For maybe the first or second time in my life, I'm at odds w/ Carleton - and it feels weird.

While the geo on the Specialized isn't "sprinter geo", those Langsters get used on every track I've been to. Burnaby 200m? Tons of em.
They get raced on the Kuipke, get raced everywhere and they do fine and win races.

They are a good deal for the price (usually), the new ones have long dropouts that I haven't seen any wear on.... you know, I can't name anything wrong with them at all, other than "the geo is traditional track geo" -
Those bikes can go fast, they can Madison, they can move up and down track on steep tracks with no problems I've ever seen..... dunno.
IMO, no reason not to buy one.

gycho77

I think Carleton prefer steep head tube andgle because of handling
You could find more geometry information in the link
Urban Velo #3 - Bicycle Culture on the Skids

queerpunk

+1

Sprint geometry has its benefits - especially over 65kph
Enduro geometry, or dual-purpose mass start/pursuit geometry also has its benefits. Especially around 55kph.

Hida Yanra

Don W is a boss - his bikes are amazing and he's a brain.
but until you are diving down a bank at +60kph, the geo of the Langster Pro is great for mass start / pursuit racing.
And if you are along the black line or coming over the top of an exchange at 55kph, the Langster is great.

For sprinters, yeah, geo makes a difference.
How much that matters for enduros? I'd say not much at all.
For the vast majority of track racers? Not so much - I mean, look at the guys on the Leader team winning P/1 races in LA..... the langster isn't "traditional track geo" - that's a fact, and it's just fine for the vast majority of us.

queerpunk

I used to ride a Felt TK2, which has traditional sprint geometry, and I actually hated how it responded sometimes. I wouldn't really be able to describe it - it's been a few years - but while I liked the nimbleness of a steep headtube there was something else I didn't like.

When I replaced the TK2 with a Langster Pro, the LP's 73deg headtube and 45mm fork struck me as "not right" - even though the trail measurement winds up being a totally reasonable number, like 56 or 57 IIRC. I did some poking around looking for a 35 or 40mm fork to use on it. And then I rode it, and I realized that I did not need to buy a different fork for it. I've done pursuits, team pursuits, keirins, very fast mass start races, dove down 43deg bankings on it, finally got my flying 200 into the elevens, and the bike does what I need it to do.

carleton

Remember the post that started this:

Cost of racing the Planet X: $0
Cost of switching to the Specialized: MSRP - 30%

No